ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2021A-05473-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2022-03-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jacob Jeffrey Gantt,

COMPLAINANT

My Neighborhood Handyman, LLC

License No. ROC 289695,

RESPONDENT

No. 2021A-05473-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

DECISION

HEARING: February 25, 2022

APPEARANCES: Complainant Jacob Jeffrey Gantt appeared on his own behalf, with his wife, Alana Gantt. Kent Axtell appeared on behalf of Respondent My Neighborhood Handyman, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Christopher Fultz appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

FINDINGS OF FACT

My Neighborhood Handyman, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 289695, a Class B-3 General Remodeling and Repair license, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Respondent’s license classification allows Respondent to remodel and repair an existing residential structure or appurtenance except for electrical, plumbing, mechanical, boilers, swimming pools, spas and water wells, which must be subcontracted to an appropriately licensed contractor.

On or about July 23, 2021, Jacob Jeffrey Gantt (“Complainant”) entered into a written contract with Respondent for Respondent to construct an addition to Complainant’s home. The contract price was $42,500.00. Complainant paid Respondent $15,000.00. The terms of the contract specified a completion date “within ninety days or less of the contract date.”

On or about October 27, 2021, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Christopher Fultz. Investigator Fultz conducted a jobsite inspection on November 29, 2021. Respondent did not attend. Investigator Fultz’s Jobsite Inspection Notes state the following:

The Contractor trenched the front yard and began underground plumbing. This plumbing failed the city inspection. The contractor is not licensed to do this type of work. Jacob stated that the contractor has not come back to the house since. He did have to hire a second plumber to make the house safe to use.

Upon researching this contractor, It appears he has numerous online complaints for taking money and not preforming any work or abandoning the project. He also has complaints with the ROC for the same issues.

On 12/07/2021, I received a call from Kent Axell who stated he was fired from the job. He was not able to provide any documentation of this.

I will forward this case to the legal department for a citation of abandonment and contracting out of scope.

Compliance Item: 1 - Contractor has breached contract over 90 days and almost no work has been done.

Investigator’s Observation: It appears the work was abandoned. The contractor did not attend the inspection.

Compliance Item: 2 - Apparently contractor does not have ROC for drainage plumbing and they had their own employee do the plumbing which failed inspection.

Investigator’s Observation: The Contractor trenched the front yard and was working on underground plumbing. The Contractor is not licensed for this work.

Compliance Item: 3 - They said they ordered the trusses and they have not.

Investigator’s Observation: No evidence has been provided by the contractor showing order of trusses.

Compliance Item: 4 - Project manager and employees have quit the business due to not getting paid. Project manager called me personally to let me know what’s going down and he is scamming people.

Investigator’s Observation: The ROC does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Compliance Item: 5 - Multiple complaints online about him scamming other

people. Check the BBB and google reviews.

Investigator’s Observation: There are numerous complaints online and with the BBB about the contractor taking money and not doing work. As well as several ROC complaints.

5. Investigator Fultz did not issue a Written Directive to Respondent, but instead, recommended to the Registrar that a Citation be issued against Respondent’s license.

6. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16). Respondent filed a timely Answer to the Citation and the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

7. A hearing was held on February 25, 2022. Complainant testified on his own behalf. Kent Axtell testified on behalf of Respondent.

8. Investigator Fultz testified consistently with his Jobsite Inspection Notes. Investigator Fultz further testified that Complainant had to hire another contractor to perform the septic work in order to pass city inspection. Investigator Fultz testified that that are numerous complaints currently pending against Respondent.

9. Complainant testified that he contracted with Respondent for an addition to the front of his home. Complainant had obtained the permit and plans for the project. Complainant testified that the project was to be completed within ninety days or less from the contract date, pursuant to the terms of the contract. Complainant testified that Respondent did not commence work until September 9, 2021, when Respondent performed the plumbing for the sewer system. However, the plumbing performed by Respondent failed inspection. Complainant was concerned with the pace of the project and contacted Respondent to express his concern. Complainant also researched Respondent further and testified that he discovered that there had been multiple lawsuits filed against Respondent, as well as negative online reviews, and that Kent Axtell, a member of Respondent, was found guilty of securities fraud in 2008 and ordered to pay $1.2 million in restitution.

10. After the expiration of the timeframe delineated in the contract, on October 30, 2021, Complainant met with Respondent and requested a refund of the monies paid given the lack of work performed on the project and because Respondent was not licensed to perform the plumbing work that was performed and failed inspection.

11. Ken Axtell testified that all of the testimony provided by Complainant was accurate, that it was never his intention to cause harm, that COVID-19 “took out key people” and “broke the rhythm,” and that he values being a licensed contractor. Mr. Axtell further testified that he “intended to have a licensed plumber complete the work.”

12. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 2, 2022. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 289695 was first issued on February 13, 2014, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there are four open complaints including the instant complaint, two prior complaints resulting in discipline, both resulting in suspension, and one resolved/settled complaint.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The evidence established that Respondent contracted and was paid for Complainant’s project and did not perform the work. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The evidence established that Respondent performed plumbing work on the project and such work is beyond the scope of Respondent’s license. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).

Complainant established that he paid Respondent $15,000.00 toward the project and the only work performed was deficient and performed beyond the scope of Respondent’s license.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 289695.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay to Complainant the sum of $15,000.00 as restitution pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1156.01.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, March 3, 2022.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000